Arsenal need to stop looking for penalty excuses and admit they weren’t good enough to beat Stoke

I always find it amusing, hearing and reading opposition fan views on why Stoke shouldn’t have been awarded a penalty.

I’m not just talking about the penalty against Arsenal over the weekend – I mean any penalty. At all. Whatsoever.

And, it’s not always the fans of the team who conceded the penalty voicing their opinion – such is the hatred shown towards us.

The latest penalty involved Jonathan Walters and Laurent Koscielny. Walters, attacking the Arsenal goal, tried to lift the ball over Koscielny – only for the latter’s hand to be in his way.

The arguments against it being a penalty are the normal ‘ball-to-hand’ or ‘too close to react’. But I ask – is that really the truth? Let’s analyse it for a moment.

Koscielny was approximately five yards away from Walters. He wasn’t lunging for the ball, and his hand was raised – at shoulder level – and followed the path of the (rather slow moving) ball that Walters had tried to lob.

It was as clear a penalty as you’ll see.

What is most amusing though, is that some fans are now calling for this type of incident to be awarded as an indirect free kick, rather than a penalty.

Why?

If it happened anywhere else on the pitch, a direct free kick would be awarded. So what makes it less of a foul if it’s in the penalty box?

At what point do we stipulate a handball is worthy of a penalty, direct or indirect free kick? How do you clearly differentiate between every single possible hand-balling scenario?

If Walter’s lob hadn’t been blocked by Koscielny’s hand, he would have been in a position to either shoot or pass to a team-mate in a shooting position.

People need to stop looking for excuses for losing against Stoke – or any other team, in fact. Sometimes, you just need to hold your hands up and say ‘We just weren’t good enough’.